EVF M rumoured

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Having the exposure triangle available right at the top of the camera is undoubtedly very handy. But I also love the solution on the M11-D, where the ISO wheel is back on the back, where I think it belongs. In any case, I won't be buying any more cameras with a screen on the back.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[panoreserve]

In 2016, after 16 years of M photography, I switched to the SL system (currently exclusively with 4 SL apo lenses).

What was the main reason for me to switch from M to SL? Quite clearly: I was annoyed by the almost chronic susceptibility to misalignment of the opto-mechanical rangefinder (not due to a lack of AF or personal visual impairments, etc.). How often have I been to Solms, or most recently to Wetzlar, to have my M equipment (several digital bodies, lenses from 21-90mm) "completely tuned" so that the focus point is exactly where I want/need it, even at aperture 1.4 (35 ASPH.) or 2.0 (75/90 APO's). To travel to Hesse again six months or a year later...

If a future M-EVF could compensate for this inherent weakness of the somewhat outdated opto-mechanical rangefinder by enabling sensor-based focusing, just like an SL, that would be a very strong argument for me to take a closer look at this camera (I'd even somehow accept the lack of IBIS, but it would still be a shame...)!

Since the M is Leica's (especially Stefan Daniels') declared favorite, I assume that they managed to create a "typical" M despite the EVF implementation, not least in terms of the photography experience... Best regards! panoreserve

Edited March 27 by panoreserve

[evikne]

11 minutes ago, panoreserve said:

In 2016, after 16 years of M photography, I switched to the SL system (currently exclusively with 4 SL apo lenses).

What was the main reason for me to switch from M to SL? Quite clearly: I was annoyed by the almost chronic susceptibility to misalignment of the opto-mechanical rangefinder (not due to a lack of AF or personal visual impairments, etc.). How often have I been to Solms, or most recently to Wetzlar, to have my M equipment (several digital bodies, lenses from 21-90mm) "completely tuned" so that the focus point is exactly where I want/need it, even at aperture 1.4 (35 ASPH.) or 2.0 (75/90 APO's). To travel to Hesse again six months or a year later...

If a future M-EVF could compensate for this inherent weakness of the somewhat outdated opto-mechanical rangefinder by enabling sensor-based focusing, just like an SL, that would be a very strong argument for me to take a closer look at this camera (I'd even somehow accept the lack of IBIS, but it would still be a shame...)!

Since the M is Leica's (especially Stefan Daniels') declared favorite, I assume that they managed to create a "typical" M despite the EVF implementation, not least in terms of the photography experience... Best regards! panoreserve

There have been many different arguments for an EVF-M, but being able to say goodbye to miscalibration and focus shift is what I see as the biggest advantage as well.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Stevejack said:

Not to mention you can't check your ISO setting at a glance or make adjustments when the camera is asleep / off.

Who knows if the rumour is true, but the 3 parts of the exposure triangle NEED to be dedicated, labelled dials... otherwise they are designing the camera exclusively for people to who shoot in auto and use exposure compensation.

Auto ISO is always a last resort for me, I hate raising the camera to my eye and realising camera's exposure choice is different to my own and then needing to make tweaks as the scene changes in front of me. Auto ISO has its place, I use it when I need to, but it's a terrible decision to remove the dedicated ISO dial completely.

I must admit that I am a fan of dedicated dials over menus or buttons in general. They give me a feel of analog control. However, having used film for a (very) long time, ISO is still not an exposure parameter to me as it does not control the amount of light entering the camera and that is the thing that creates the image. Like choosing the right film before the shoot I regard it more as a set-and-forget parameter. 
Having said that I do find that I change the digital “film” on the fly regularly so I can see the practicality of an ISO dial. For instance the SL solution of Fn button press+thumbwheel does not quite cut it. But I do think that Leica might well choose it for a hypothetical EVF M. 

[Stevejack]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I must admit that I am a fan of dedicated dials over menus or buttons in general. They give me a feel of analog control. However, having used film for a (very) long time, ISO is still not an exposure parameter to me as it does not control the amount of light entering the camera and that is the thing that creates the image. Like choosing the right film before the shoot I regard it more as a set-and-forget parameter. 
Having said that I do find that I change the digital “film” on the fly regularly so I can see the practicality of an ISO dial. For instance the SL solution of Fn button press+thumbwheel does not quite cut it. But I do think that Leica might well choose it for a hypothetical EVF M. 

Yep, completely get what you're saying there and very well put.
And who knows, by setting ISO before the shoot and concentrating only on shutter + aperture maybe I'll start to prefer that way of working. 

[jaapv]

Well, rationally reducing the number of things one has to keep track of certainly helps concentrating on getting the image. 

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica Rumors page contains an image of a speculated M11-V with an ISO dial. The version without an ISO dial also has no controls in the back; all controls are likely via LCD, including ISO.

Edited March 27 by SrMi

[Lee S]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

Pretty handy for setting menu items which is kinda hard with a camera at your eye 

Yes very true. The Leica implementation for touch controls is brilliant and it would be a shame to loose it. 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, evikne said:

Having the exposure triangle available right at the top of the camera is undoubtedly very handy. But I also love the solution on the M11-D, where the ISO wheel is back on the back, where I think it belongs. In any case, I won't be buying any more cameras with a screen on the back.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Maybe but my definition of exposure does not include a triangle. Exposure is control over the amount of light entering the camera. ISO has nothing to do with it. It is a gain control over the processing of the light. 
Light entering the camera creates the image. From there on it is processing. 

[LocalHero1953]

Just now, jaapv said:

Maybe but my definition of exposure does not include a triangle. Exposure is control over the amount of light entering the camera. ISO has nothing to do with it. It is a gain control over the processing of the light. 

A distinction without a difference. It is a control that allows you to change the amount of light entering the camera. Change the ISO setting and you can safely change exposure.

In the end it just comes down to understanding what's going on in your camera and how it affects the image.

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Maybe but my definition of exposure does not include a triangle. Exposure is control over the amount of light entering the camera. ISO has nothing to do with it. It is a gain control over the processing of the light. 

+1

Exposure triangle is a known misconception. As you explained, ISO is applied after the exposure is completed.

[SrMi]

Just now, LocalHero1953 said:

A distinction without a difference. It is a control that allows you to change the amount of light entering the camera. Change the ISO setting and you can safely change exposure.

In the end it just comes down to understanding what's going on in your camera and how it affects the image.

No, ISO does not regulated the amount of light entering the camera, unless you use ISO to aitomatically set exposure. And, no, ISO does not change sensor's sensitivity to light.

That distinction is important to be able to competently set exposure on a digital camera.

[evikne]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Maybe but my definition of exposure does not include a triangle. Exposure is control over the amount of light entering the camera. ISO has nothing to do with it. It is a gain control over the processing of the light. 

That’s how I use my camera  too, especially now with the almost ISO invariant sensors. I usually just set my M10 at ISO 200 and leave it there. When it gets too dark, I just raise the exposure in post, of course after letting in as much light as possible with the settings of shutter speed and aperture.

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, SrMi said:

No, ISO does not regulated the amount of light entering the camera, unless you use ISO to aitomatically set exposure. And, no, ISO does not change sensor's sensitivity to light.

That distinction is important to be able to competently set exposure on a digital camera.

Of course you are correct technically. But the distinction makes no more difference to the nature and quality of the image than shutter speed and aperture. If you want to set ISO for the duration of a photo session, that's absolutely fine. But if you want to maintain a particular shutter speed and aperture for the duration of your photo session, then you can adjust ISO as you go. That's fine too. Changing shutter speed makes a difference to (e.g.) blur. Changing aperture makes a difference to (e.g.) DOF. Changing ISO makes a difference to (e.g.) shadow noise. But once you understand that, the debate is one that is of vital importance only on gear-centric forums like this one. 

Edited March 27 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

And the confusion will only get more as we see global shutters. People will forget the basics. A photograph is created by light. ( disregarding AI here) light is admitted to the camera by aperture and shutter time. The film/sensor records the light according to its sensitivity ISO is the definition of that sensitivity. On film one can change the sensitivity by the production process. On a sensor by amplification of the signal from the sensor. Neither has to do with the original exposure. Obviously the photographer will base his exposure on his knowledge of the process after the exposure, but also on his wishes for the outcome like high or low key, noise behaviour etc.  Does that create an exposure pentagram? Or hexagon ?

15 minutes ago, SrMi said:

No, ISO does not regulated the amount of light entering the camera, unless you use ISO to aitomatically set exposure. And, no, ISO does not change sensor's sensitivity to light.

That distinction is important to be able to competently set exposure on a digital camera.

 

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Obviously the photographer will base his exposure on his knowledge of the process after the exposure

Exactly. So what difference does it make in practical photography whether ISO is considered a similar parameter to shutter speed and aperture or different? ISO, shutter speed and aperture all have their specific effects, and one needs to understand (and use) them all.

Edited March 27 by LocalHero1953

[pgk]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I must admit that I am a fan of dedicated dials over menus or buttons in general. They give me a feel of analog control.

And, importantly, I preset my camera in manual mode to infinity, 1/250s and f/8, so that I can firstly check that the camera is ready to use at a glance to ensure all are set as anticipated, and secondly it means that I know which way and how many clicks to turn dials when I need to. Menus don't offer such simple operation.

[SrMi]

27 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Of course you are correct technically. But the distinction makes no more difference to the nature and quality of the image than shutter speed and aperture. If you want to set ISO for the duration of a photo session, that's absolutely fine. But if you want to maintain a particular shutter speed and aperture for the duration of your photo session, then you can adjust ISO as you go. That's fine too. Changing shutter speed makes a difference to (e.g.) blur. Changing aperture makes a difference to (e.g.) DOF. Changing ISO makes a difference to (e.g.) shadow noise. But once you understand that, the debate is one that is of vital importance only on gear-centric forums like this one. 

Do you understand that increasing ISO reduces shadow noise?

The exposure triangle misconception often leads to wrong conclusions.

[SrMi]

16 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Exactly. So what difference does it make in practical photography whether ISO is considered a similar parameter to shutter speed and aperture or different? ISO, shutter speed and aperture all have their specific effects, and one needs to understand (and use) them all.

It made a big difference to my photography once I understood it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[panoreserve]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb evikne:

There have been many different arguments for an EVF-M, but being able to say goodbye to miscalibration and focus shift is what I see as the biggest advantage as well.

Exactly!!!